[Python-Dev] Explicit Lexical Scoping (pre-PEP?) (original) (raw)

Fuzzyman fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Tue Jul 11 10:14:22 CEST 2006

Talin wrote:

Ka-Ping Yee wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 skip at pobox.com wrote:

I think Talin's got a point though. It seems hard to find one short English word that captures the essence of the desired behavior. None of the words in his list seem strongly suggestive of the meaning to me. I suspect that means one's ultimately as good (or as bad) as the rest. What's wrong with "nonlocal"? I don't think i've seen an argument against that one so far (from Talin or others). Well, I just think that a fix for "an aesthetic wart" should be, well, aesthetic :) I also think that it won't be a complete disaster if we do nothing at all - there are existing ways to deal with this problem; there are even some which aren't hackish and non-obvious. For example, its easy enough to create an object which acts as an artificial scope: def x(): scope = object() scope.x = 1 def y(): scope.x = 2 To my mind, the above code looks about as elegant and efficient as most of the proposals put forward so far, and it already works. How much are we really saving here by building this feature into the language? def x(): ...: scope = object() ...: scope.x = 1 ...: def y(): ...: scope.x = 2 x()

exceptions.AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)

I've often found it a nuisance that you can't instantiate an 'object', to use as a mutable 'namespace', but instead have to define an arbitrary empty class.

What happened to the 'namespace' proposal ?

Michael Foord http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

-- Talin

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list